Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Biotech Valuation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Biomaven who wrote (12214)	7/3/2004 9:27:15 AM
From: quidditch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 52153

Peter: available but embargoed. Does that mean available to physicians and subscribers of some sort but subject to a restriction against publication to the world at large? Is this an ASCO type "binary" release (:-?

To: Biomaven who wrote (12214)	7/3/2004 12:31:15 PM
From: quidditch	Respond to of 52153

Interesting post from Yahoo ELN thread on AZ research tool and methodology patents: (thanks Rick, an embargo is an embargo is an embargo) finance.messages.yahoo.com <<"I'm unclear about the Lilly/Elan patent positions in the common areas, above. If our agedwardssucks would be kind enough to fire some of his clients and give us a report on this..." Fire my clients!!! In my dreams! I already know which ones to dump. Actually, I'm working on a radical, entrepreneurial change (facilitated, in part, by the financial security of the big rise (past and hopefully future) in ELN shares) but creating new biotechs takes time and patience, lots of patience. As I recall, Lilly had sponsored much of the early Athena AD research programs. This resulted mostly in the creation of the transgenic mouse model in the early to mid 90's. This was back when patents to research tools and transgenic animals were considered enforceable (following the case of Ex parte Allen, one of my favourites). Athena/Lilly tried to corner the AD experimental compound market segment (essentially beta amyloid antagonists type products as distinguished from the ineffective anticholinesterase products currently available) by requiring a royalty (can you say "reach-through") or even marketing rights when the transgenic mouse model was used to prove up efficacy in pre-clinical development. I was working with others at the time (some of whom came from the same labs at Rockefeller as the key Athena science geeks) and we tried to get our AD compounds tested in the transgenic model (I think this was around 1997). When we were given the terms we decided to go around the model and not get extorted out of the compound. The Lilly deal was terminated as part of the Elan acquisition but I think that Lilly retained some rights if not a royualty-free license to practice most of what was developed. That means that Lilly can and did turn their army of chemists loose and synthesize any antagonists they wish and do the in vivo testing on the transgenic (Swedish mutation) mouse model. Moreover, there are many players in the beta secretase and gamma secretase inhibitor spaces as evidenced by doing patent application searching (using key words "secretase" and "inhibitor"). The common availability of the Mayo Clinic transgenic mouse provides an in vivo model and there are other ways to do in vivo testing for efficacy. The guiding motto is "necessity is the mother of invention." Please don't construe my comments as "negative" regarding Elan as an investment. My actions or rather inactions (I have not sold a share and bought all in low single digits) speak louder regarding my investment descisions because, in my opinion, the transgenic mouse patents are valueless. But all the other product stuff of Elan is extremely valuable. My own evaluation of "value" follows the traditional pharma system (look at products only and value is the inverse of risk). While I agree with wwilson that Elan has a "scientific lead" and will likely be the first out of the gate (i.e., FDA approval) with an immunotherapeutic based upon an b-APP removal mechanism, the patent positions of Elan and Lilly do not block each other or many other pharmas from developing different products with similar mechanisms of action. Pharmas have historically been able to develop me too type products (that is, structurally different drugs but the same basic pharmacological mechanism). The world of biological type drugs and the prevalence of me toos for biologicals is highly controversial right now and one where I am active. It dovetails into the controversy at the FDA over how to allow biogenerics. And with that I have to get back to the salt mines. Have a good weekend everyone. AG Edwards Sucks >>